rs CONGREGATIONAL a SHES 
a ior eae, Jig OF MASSACHUSETTS. Pe Be 
‘ ‘ r t 7 ; ae de : 
REVIEW OF A PAMPHLET ~ : 
Ae fe 4 - 
ae : é | ENTITLED i 
ie ‘ 
Cae Sl RIGHTS OF THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES OF 
“MASSACHUSETTS. THE RESULT OF AN ECCLESIASTICAL 
- COUNCIL CONVENED AT GROTON, MAss. JULY 17,1826.” 
SRP! RIN. a 2 : ie * A if 
“ ; PROM THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER, 
rg tele Sana "Vou. Iv. ‘No. Wives 
NOR ES SS SECC OIE SMOG se nS 3 
‘I ' » 
= , v * 
BOSTON, . 
pis BOWLES. AND DEARRORN, 72 WASHINGTON STREET. 
ns ¥ . ee se 
* cop Printed by Dutton & Wentworth, 
i : “rs : a : < 
B 
a ipa 


REVIEW : P 


@F THE 


RESULT OF COUNCIL 


AT GROTON. = 


Permars there never was a more palpable misno- 
mer than is to be found in the title of this extraordinary 


pamphlet. Instead of the ‘ Rights,’ it should have been - 


entitled the ‘ Usurpations’ of the early churches of Mas- 
sachusetts over their christian brethren ; over those, who, 
—professing themselves the disciples of Jesus Christ, 
admitting his divine authority, receiving his doctrines 
and precepts as the revelation of God, and contributing 
to the maintenance of public christian worship,—feel, 
and know, that they enjoy, and are entitled to hold and 
possess an entire equality of privileges with those who 
call themselves, by way of*eminence, the members of 
Christ’s church. But to no privilege do they think their 
title clearer than to that of an equal voice in the selection 
of their teachers and pastors, upon whose ministry they 
attend, and for whose support they pay in proportion to 
their property. Yet this privilege, this dearest right of 
Congregationalists, unequivocally confirmed to them by 
_ our State Constitution and a succession of legal decisions, 
is by the pamphlet before us called in question. The 
exercise of it is there maintained to be unscriptural, and 
unreasonable; contrary to New England usages, and a 
sound interpretation of our laws. In fme, the professed 


Ae 


te 


4 * Church and People. = 


e 


# © 
design of this little book is, to take a stand at the polls 
and revolutionize the state; to reverse the unanimous 
decisions of all the judges we have had in our Supreme 
Court for fifteen years ; remodel our admirable Bill of 
Rights, and restore to the injured church,* powers 
wrested from her by artful, proselyting makers and in- 
terpreters of the law. The good people of Massachu- 
setts, it seems, have even been cajoled into the exercise 
of these powers; and had they seen the drift of what was 
doing for them, they would long ago have revolted against 
the enjoyment of such unlawful.privileges. 
But we are utterly unable to perceive why there should 
be an equality in civil concerns, and a perpetual and 
odious aristocracy, a never dying house of lords and 
bishops in the church, — cannot perceive how it is 
possible that one fifth part of a whole society should pos- 
sess, de jure, not only a negative, a veto on the doings of 
the other four fifths, but that having exerted this power, 
they should have a right to vote again in the lower body, 
‘the world,’ as it is contemptuously called.. When we 
ask by what means, by what species of merit, this power 
has been acquired, we are answered that the members of 
this privileged caste, have been admitted by vote into the 
aristocracy. Is this power of admission or rejection ab- 
solute? Yes. Is there no remedy to compel a church to 
receive a communicant or fellow it has unjustly rejected ? 
No. Can they ‘reject an applicant because his creed 
differs from their own, tholibh his moral character be 
unexceptionable? Yes. Do they require him to say 
any thing more than that he is a believer in the divine 
mission and authority of our Saviour? Yes; if the 
church be one which the authors of this Result would 
acknowledge as a true christian church, he must solemn- 
ly assent to all the propositions in which some frail and 
ignorant man has expressed his religious opinions, If 
he refuse to do this, he cannot come to the Lord’s sup- 
per; he is forbidden to do that, which his Master en- 


* In this article, the word church is used in almost every instance in 
its narrowest, technica! sense; denoting merely the body of communi+ 
cagts, the church members, so called, in our Congregational sacietigs, 4 


* sl Church and People. | 5 


joined upon him to do. He is not only deprived of his 
religious rights, forbidden to perform his christian duties, 
but, according to the doctrine of this Result, his civil 
rights are infringed. His inalienable civil right is, to 
have an equal voice with atu his fellow citizens in the 
~ election of those whom he is bound to support. ‘That 
right was secured finally to him by our Constitution, and 
has been decided so to be by the highest courts of law, 
‘with a unanimity on the part of the judges, almost with- 
out example. It is however controverted in the Result be- 
fore us, which was drawn up by Drs Beecher and Porter, 
—two Connecticut gentlemen, who, it appears, are ex- 


ceedingly distressed by the ignorance of our courts of 


law, and the submission of our people to their authority. 

By the third article of the Bill of Rights in the Con- 
stitution of Massachusetts, it is declared in the simplest 
and clearest words, that towns, parishes, precincts and 
other bodies politic, or religious societies, shal] have the 
right of electing their own teachers. These descriptions 
‘are perfectly technical. They are as well known to our 
Jaws as any terms whatever. No lawyer who makes any 
pretension to a respectable standing in his profession, 
would hazard his reputation by denying, that these words 
gave to parishes, and all the member's of religious socie= 
ties, the exclusive right of voting in the settlement of a 
minister. The effect and operation of this clause, came 
under the consideration of our Supreme Judicial Court 
about twelve or fifteen years since, and was settled in 
favor of religious liberty and natural right, in conformity 
with the clear import of the clause in the Bill of Rights, 
by Judges Parsons, Sedgwick, Sewall, Thacher, and 
Parker in the cases of Avery vs. ‘Tyringham and Burr 
vs. Sandwich. 

The weight of any legal decision depends very much 
on the ability of the judges, and on ther unanimity. Tt 
is proper, therefore, that it should be known, that the 
rights of non-communicants in the election of their pas- 
tor, have been sustained by Chief Justice Parsons, 
and Judges Sedgwick, Sewail, Thacher, Parker, Jack- 
son, Putnam, Wilde. The decisions establishing them 

1* 


d eee i eee sign UNS ara ; AX. 
Saha are ee i ON Te j ae 


6 Church and People. *' » 


were made from twelve to fifteen years sin¢e; were 
printed and circulated through the State; were well 
known to every Orthodox divine and church in the com- 
munity. Yet no church in the State, to our knowledge, 
has objected to them. In 1816, Dr Morse from Con- 
necticut and Dr Lyman. were very zealous in the good 
work of introducing the Connecticut system of Consocia- 
tions. It is well known that they made a report to the 
Convention of Ministers, which was referred by the Con- 
vention to the people,* and which was so odious, that 
not one parish approved of and accepted it. -Yet these 
learned divines never intimated an opinion, that the 
rights of the churches had been infringed by the deci- 
sions of the courts of law. The General Association of 
Massachusetts, which was intended to supply the place 
of the Connecticut Consociations, has, we believe, been 
equally silent as to this supposed aggression on church 
rights. ‘ 

At last came the most respectable and able Conven- 
tion, which Massachusetts ever had; that assembled to 
xevise the Constitution. In this body, there were Ortho- 
dox clergymen, deacons of churches, Orthodox lawyers,— = 
men able and astute, firm and vigorous in defence of the 
rights of the church. The third article of the Bill of 
Rights was especially the object of notice. Every mem- 
ber of that house’ knew that the Supreme Judicial Court 
had decided against the high pretensions of church mem- 


* Since our Review was first published, an error has been detected 
in this part of it. The fact is, that the Report abovementioned was 
made in 1815 to the General Association of Massachusetts Proper, and 
by that body referred to the several Associations in their connexion ; 
but no church, it is believed, ever accepted it. The ease is, therefore, 
stronger than we have stated it. The cause of the pag hea 4 was, 
that some years before, a plan, similar in substance, had been laid be- os 
fore the Convention of Ministers, but was thought so inconsistent with 
the usages and liberties of the Congregational churches, that it was op- - 
peced by gentlemen of different opinions, and particularly, as we have 
heard, by Dr Spring, of Newburyport, Dr Emmons of Srakin, and 
Dr Osgood of Medford, and rejected by the Convention. St will be per- 
ceived, therefore, that the error is against our interest and diminishes 
the force of our argument. The Convention rejected the plan, instead 
of referring it to the people. The Report first mentioned in this note, 
was made by Drs Morse, Woods and Codman. Dr Lyman was only 
Moderator of the General Association when the Report wasmiade, 


‘ 


Church and People. 7 


bers. There was not an objection made against these - 
decisions ; not an attempt to restore the usurpations of 
the church. The debate turned wholly upon the sup- 
port of religious worship by law, and did not touch at all 
upon the right of electing pastors. 

Upon the ground of this statement of facts, which can- 
not be disproved or denied, we pronounce this Result to 
be a literary curiosity, unique for its fearless assertions, 
for its contempt of judicial authority, and of the opinions 
ofawhole people. If the gentlemen who prepared it 
had stated fairly, that Judge Parsons’s decision was made 
nearly fifteen years since, that the Convention had been 
since assembled and after full deliberation had left the 
law as Judge Parsons had’ pronounced it, but that still 
neither the Supreme Court, nor the Convention under- 
stood the legal question, we might have praised their 
frankness, though we should have smiled at their pre- 
sumption and vanity. 

We are told by these learned Connecticut theologians, 
that our ancestors, in 1641, confined the right of election 
of the pastors to the church members by statute. This 
fact is not denied by any one. [It is explicitly admitted 
by all the learned judges in their arguments. But what 
inference would the advocates for church rights draw 
from this uncontested fact? That it was right? that it 
Was scriptural and irrevocable? We should soon shew 
them, that such a presumption is utterly unfounded. The 
same persons decided, that no man should vote even in 
town affairs, no man should be a freeman, unless he were 
a church member ; a fortiori, not a member of the legis- 
lature. Will Dr Beecher maintain that this was a rea- 
sorfable provision? 'The same men maintained, that the 
Mosaic criminal law was binding on us. Do our divines 
approve of this wise determination? Do they believe 
that the judicial murders committed under the forms of 
law upon some unhappy ‘old women, for a supposed in- 
tercourse with the devil, were justifiable ? 

We know what the reply must be to these questions: 
We know also, that Cotton Mather, whose ‘ Ratio Disci- 
pling’ is cited ‘by the Council, went all the length of the 


' 


i 


es 
Bea Ay! 


Fe Ss 


g Church and People. g 


most superstitious among the vulgar, on these topics — 
Are we bound to feel a profound respect for one par- 
ticular abuse which survived that age, the exclusive right 
of the church members to elect the pastor? When we 
come to the argument, we shall show, that this preten- 
sion of the church was always sharply disputed, pred ne- 
ver entorced after 1692. 

We now proceed to consider the particular case whith 
these gentlemen have selected as affording a fit opportu= 
nity to bring forward their objections to the provisions of 
the Constitution of this State and to the law, settled as it 
is by repeated judicial decisions. The history of the 
case itself is mstruetive, and shows to what an extent the 
usurpation of a church may be carried. 

Dr Chaplin, a venerable and excellent pastor, having, 
we regret to say it, become unable to perform his paro- 
chial duties, proposed to his people the settlement of a 
colleague. The Doctor and his church, or a majority of 
them, “believed that they had an exclusive right to invite 
candidates. ‘ Providentially,’ they say—and it was a very 
favorable providence,—there was a Mr Todd from An- 
dover ‘ present.’ It was evidently one of those prepared - 
providences, which so often occur in human affairs; or 
to speak frankly, for wé are indignant at sucha profana-_ 
tion of the name of the Almighty, the Orthodox majori-_ 
ty of the church had foreseen this event ; had prepared 
for it; had arranged the whole course of procedure at 
headquarters,* and Mr Todd providentially, as we are 
told, found himself on the spot, at the most pressing mo- 
ment of Dr Chaplin’s need. Mr Todd accordingly preach- 
ed and was some time after engaged by Dr Chaplin for 
eight sabbaths. The church, consisting, we believe, of 
between twentyfive and thirty male members in a parish 
in which there were about three hundred voters, finally, 
by a vote of seventeen to eight, gave Mr Todd a call. 
The parish, it would seem from the Result, thought this 


* Mr Todd, it is said, was sent to Groton, one of the richest towns im 
the county of Middlesex, at the expense of an Orthodox missio 
This discovery, for the fact was concealed, had no small share in pro- 
ducing disaffection to Mr Tadd and to the Orthodox policy. 


‘6 
i ' 
rs 

ae . 


agit | 


Church and People. 9 


measure of the church rather too strong. After full trial, 
they found that they did not like Mr Todd; for on the 
25th of November they voted to appoint a committee to 
supply the pulpit, treating as it deserved, the usurpation 
of the church over rights so completely secured to them 
by the Constitution, and the solemn decisions of the Su- 
preme Court thereon. mae 
_ Dr Chaplin, although he knew that the church had 
given Mr Todd a call, agreed, when the parish commit~ 
tee called upon him, that they might fill the pulpit for four 
sabbaths. The vote of the parish was, to fill it for four 
months. Their committee, except for the first sunday 
when there was no preaching, actually supplied it from 
the date of their appointment, and the only objection on 
the part of the church, which we can perceive, was, that 
it was filled by Unitarian clergymen ; though we admit 
that there hardly could be supposed a more important ob- 
jection in the minds of those, who deny the christian char- 
acter to Unitarians. Dr Chaplin’s patience becoming at 
length exhausted, the following note was addressed to the 
parish committee, and the Council seem to consider it a 
very proper one. 

‘GenTLEMEN,—After mature reflection, I have thought 
it my duty to remonstrate once more, against your thrust- 
ing a man into my pulpit against my wishes, and, as I be- 
lieve, against the wishes of a majority of this people. 

‘Yours, &c. Danien CuaPtin. 

‘January 7th, 1827. 

What a strange aspect does the subject assume to us 
now? The concurrent right of election is admitted 
explicitly and repeatedly by the Council, but itis con- 
tended that the right to select the candidates is vest- 
ed exclusively in the disabled mcumbent, and his 
church !* In the present case, the church actually pro- 
ceeded to an election, without giving the majority the 


*Ttis not among the least remarkable circumstances in this case, that 
Dr Chaplin himself came into his present office in a very irregular way, 
and in violation of church order. His predecessor, the Rev. Mr Dana, 
was under the suspicion of not being friendly to the Revolution. With- 
out any ecclesiastical proceedings whatever, as we are informed, the 
town voted to dismiss him, and chose Dr Chaplin, who held his office 
for many years while the rightful incumbent, according to church disci- 
pline, was living. 


10 Church and People. 


opportunity of hearing a preacher of their own choice 
even for a sipgle sabbath. ‘This, we trust, is not a spe- 
cimen of Orthodox justice and apprehension of right. — 
The parish committee were calm and resolved. They 
knew that the Constitution had guaranteed to them the 
right of election, and of necessity the depending right’ 
of selecting candidates. Dr Chaplin speaks of ‘ thrust. 
ing aman into his pulpit against his wishes.’ Is this 


‘correct? In May preceding, he had expressed to his 


people a wish to have a colleague. ‘They had therefore 
a legal right to choose one. ‘The right to choose in- 
cludes the right to select candidates. Dr Chaplin had 
parted with his right to exclude those whom he did not 
like, by inviting the parish to provide a vege oe Surely 
no man will be so absurd as to contend that the parish, 

even if they had but a concurrent vote, had no right to 
select their candidate. Jesuitical mockery it would in- 
deed be, if the church could say to the parish, * You 
may choose as you please. You have entire freedom of 
election ; but you shall never hear a preacher on proba- 
tion, who has not been graduated at Andover ; who does 
not bear the genuine stamp, so as to render it sure that 
he is not counterfeit.’ 

But we own we are unable to comprehend what is 
meant by the property of a pastor in his pulpit. It is 
not a new thought. We heard something like this claim 
about fifteen years since ; but we acknowledge that it is 
to us a mystery. The church and the pulpit are the 
property of the parish. The pastor is the incumbent under 
contract. If he become wnable to perform his contract, 
his right, legally speaking, is gone ; though in our judg- 
ment, base indeed is the conduct of that christian soci- 
ety, which in all cases would avail itself of its legal 
rights. But most assuredly when by the act of God the 
incumbent is deprived of his ability to do his duty, and 
especially when he avows that inability, and invites his 
people to select a colleague, his rights over his pulpit 
are, pro hac vice, gone ; they are utterly extinct, so. far 
as it respects the new candidate. 

Such was the unhappy case, which Dr Beecher and 


Church and People. 11 


others selected as a proper occasion for them to teach - 


the courts and people of Massachusetts, what the laws 
of Massachusetts are, and what are the rights and du- 
ties of the good, honest, but blind people of this ancient 
State ; to read them a lecttre on their degeneracy ; to 
threaten them with dreadful retribution,—from whom, 
or of what nature they do not undertake to state, know- 
ing, probably, that terror is always greater in proportion 
as the objects of it are dimly and obscurely perceived. 

The first remark we shall make, is, that the question 
whether the decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court 


were in direct violation of the constitutional and legal _ 


rights of churches, hardly seems to have been submitted 
to this learned Council. The judgment pronounced by 
Drs Beecher and Porter, appears as perfectly gratuitous 
on their part, as if the Andover Theological Faculty it- 
self, had, ex proprio motu, assembled and undertaken to 
review, arraign, and condemn the decisions of the high- 
est court of law in the State without the invitation of 
any party interested. It was a voluntary, and, as we 
think, impertinent intrusion of opinion. The Council 
was not a mutual council, but an ex parte one ; a coun- 
cil not deciding on theological, but civil questions. 

The Council say, page 61, that ‘so far as we can 
learn, but one denomination of professed Christians in 
the State, have given any evidence of approbation of the 
law [which decides the right of electing the pastor to be 
in the whole people,] or sought to avail themselves of it, 
and that a recent, and, compared with the freemen be- 
longing to other denominations, a very small denomi- 
nation.’ 

What are we to understand by this? That the liberal 
Christians are a new denomination? They are Congre- 
gationalists ; what were the members of this Council ? 
The liberal ‘clergy are, and always have been received 
as members of the Convention of Congregational min- 
isters. One of them is Treasurer of that body. Is it 
tompetent to this Council to expel from the bosom of the 
church a large portion of the Congregational clergy and 
parishioners in the State? Are these the first fruits of 


12 Church and People. 


this importation of followers of the Saybrook Platform 7. 


Why this contemptuous suggestion of the ‘ recent’ ori- 
gin, and of the ‘ small’ number of the liberal Chris- 
tians? .The laws m question do not apply to the Catho- 
lics, the Episcopalians, the Baptists, the .Universalists, 
and the Methodists. They were designed for the Con- 
gregationalists—and will this Council, as christian min- 
isters, dare to say, that i im the Congregational church 
the liberal Christians are ‘a very small’ party? They 
know it to be otherwise ; and as to their opinions being 

‘recent,’ we may refer these gentlemen to Sir Isaac 
Newton and John ~Locke, or to President Adams, who 
enumerates many eminent ‘divines of Massachusetts, who 
held these opinions m his youth, which must have ‘been 
before the middle of the last century—This language 
of contempt in which the Orthodox clergy:too often in- 
dulge, may well be spared. It only proves the want of 
the true spirit of our holy religion, as well as a convic~ 
tion that they are unable to meet liberal Christians, on 
the fair field of argument and scripture. 

’ While a large portion of the Result is devoted to a 
question, as we have already said, not distinetly submit- 
ted to them, viz. whether the Supreme Judicial Court 
did, or did not understand, or wilfully misinterpret the 
Constitution and laws of this State, no notice whatever 
is taken of an important part of the third, and the whole 
of the fourth questions propounded to the Council by 
the small majority of the former Groton church. The 
part of the third question to which no reply is given, is, 
“Whether the claim of the minority of the church to be 
considered the first church in Groton, can or will be sus- 
tained by civil or ecclesiastical power? The Dedham 
case, which the Council appear to have studied with 
close attention, would have enabled them to reply, ‘ that 
the deserted minority of the Groton church could and 


A. 


would be held rightfully to be the first chureh in Sree . 


both by civil and ecclesiastical authority.’ Was it 
unkind, therefore, to lead the seceders into error, sea 
omitting to state these decisions to them ? Nay, was 
the part of peaceable and ‘loyal citizens to esis. Hsia to. 


- 


Church and People. 13 


impress the opposite opinions on the misguided and ill 
advised majority ? 

The fourth question is, ‘ Do this Council regard the 
minority of this church as having walked disorderly, and 
what course do they advise the church to take concerning 
them?’ On this subject the Council have preserved a pru- 
dent silence. They felt, that it would savour of the ridi- 
culous to charge the minority with disorderly walking, 
merely becaise they did not desert the congregation, 
nor quit the house in which their fathers worshipped, or 
because they preferred a clergyman of liberal opinions. 
_In Massachusetts we have not yet gone so far as the 
Consociations of Connecticut have done, by expelling a 
brother for heretical opinions ; and as to excommunica- 
tion, in this case, after the voluntary secession of the 
majority, it would have been about as wise, as the papal 
excommunication of the realm of England, after parlia- 
ment and king had by solemn acts renounced the papal 
authority. Though the Council was silent, the church, 
it seems, did proceed to the thunders of excommunica- 
tion ; but the lightning did not strike. 

In this stage of our remarks, we would advert for a 
moment to the arrogant style of this Result. No bishop 
of the Romish or English church, would dare to use 
language so haughty, and insulting towards the great 
mass of Christians, who are non-communicants, and who 
comprise, among us, seven eighths of the christian pub- 
lic. They are contemptuously stigmatized as the 

‘world,’ and lest you should doubt what they under- 
stand by this term, they define it to be the immoral, de- 
bauched, profane, and unbelieving part of society. "You 
are warned expressly that if the election of the pastor 
should devolve upon the non-communicants, there would 
be an end of all vital religion ;—indeed they add that 
religion would not even be supported. Let us take a 
single example of their way of speaking. 


‘ The amalgamation of the church,’ it is said, ‘ with the 
world, in the election of her pastor, may seem a small thing 
to many; but small as it, may seem, the distinct power of 
the church to elect her pastor, and admit and expel her 

2 


i, 


14 Church and People. 


members, independent of any secular alliance or influence, 
constitutes the mighty secret of uniting, in this alienated 
world, evangelical doctrine, vital godliness, and pure disci- 
pline, with libérty of conscience, equal civil rights, and per- 
manent civil support.’—p. 61. ; ’ , 


4 

This is the language of the Result, and we confess 
that coming from Connecticut gentlemen of all others, 
it fills us with astonishment. The experience of that 
State, in which their doctrines have been reduced to 
practice, ought to have made them hesitate to use it, 
Besides, if correct, the churches of Massachusetts have 
never, for one day, since 1692, according to the express 
admission of these Councilmen themselves, been in the 
enjoyment of this mighty secret of entire independence, 
They have never had the ‘ distinct power to elect their 
pastors.’ The parish, the ‘ world,’ the helots, the burden 
bearers, the paymasters have always had a negative; 
there has always been a ‘ secular alliance and influence” 
But it is not, to our dim perceptions, easy to see any trace 
of ‘liberty of conscience’ in such a case as that of the 
Groton church. Thirty members are the church, They 
claim the right to ‘admit or expel members.’ T 
annex their own conditions. You must pronounce their 
creed, and ‘ assent and consent, ’—two words in the act 
of uniformity of Charles II. which threw out two thou- 
sand dissenting clergymen on the famous St Bartholo- 
mew’s day,—to a creed of their devising, or sixteen out 
of the thirty may exclude the other three hundred chris- 
tian voters of the town, not merely from the communion, 
but from the right-of voting with the church. Call you 
this liberty of conscience ? The church members are to 
have a negative on the votes of the parish. The three - 
hundred and thirty shall not hear the clergyman and the 
opinions they prefer, because sixteen men do not ap- 
prove of them! Still they must pay, and give ‘perma-_ 
nent civil support,’ and this is misnamed ‘ equal civil 
rights.’ The very claim is evidently an assumption th 
‘the church members have a monopoly of piety ; aye, am 
of knowledge of the scriptures ; and it is distinctly stated 
by this candid Council, that if the right of election be 


Church and People. ee 


restored to the great mass of christian worshippers, from 
whom it has been wrenched, there will be an instanta- 
neous decline and final extinction of religion. What a 
reproach on human nature! What distrust of that Be- 
ing, who has declared that he will uphold his church, 
and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! 

It is perhaps treating these broad assertions of the 
Council with too much consideration, to test their sound- 
ness by an appeal to experience ; but we shall select one, 
case for this purpose from their own Result. They ad- 
mit that the society in Brattle Street, from its origin, 
elected their pastor in a general meeting of the church 
and parish. In short, its elections are as republican, as 
our civil ones have always been. What has been the 
effect in a trial of a century and one quarter? We say 
nothing of Colman, the two Coopers, Thatcher, and 
Buckminster. Of course we shall also be silent as to the 
living pastors. But we ask, what has been the charac- 
ter of the mass of that society? Have they been prof 
ligate, unprincipled, indifferent to the support of reli- — 
gious worship? Has the society not kept pace with any 
Orthodox church, in its zeal for the support of religion 
and in the moral and religious character of its mem- 
_ bers? 

The truth is, that the suggestion is a slander on hu- 
man nature. There is not the slightest foundation for 
the fears expressed, that the exercise of the natural 
rights of the whole christian society would be dangerous 
to the cause of vital piety. So far from it, we are con- 
vineed that the spirit of usurpation over these rights, 
which has been displayed by the Orthedox clergy and 
church members, has been exceedingly injurious to the 
spread of true religion. 

It is now, as we have said, more than fifteen years 
since the courts of law gave the only possible construc- — 
tion which could be given to the.Constitution, as to the 
right of electing religious teachers. Is it true that there 
has been the least diminution of zeal for religion? These 
Connecticut gentlemen know very little about our state 
of society, We know they-consider it ‘to be corrupt. 


16 Church and People. 


Dr Dwight, with all his prejudices, had a more correct 
knowledge of the state of morals and religion here, and 
sufficient liberality to do us justice. Yes, insulted as we 
are by these laborers in our vineyards, who have come in 
at the eleventh hour, aNd have not borne the heat: and 
burden of the day, we are confident that the moral and 
religious character of this State will compare even with 
that of their. own, with ail its Consociations and i 
tions.—Perhaps we have said more on this point than the 
illiberal suggestion at has called forth these Temarks, 
merited. a ae 

It would be too severe a trial of the patience of our 
readers, should we attempt to follow the Result im ‘its 
rambling course of assertion, argument, and declamation: 
We can only select, in addition to those we have alre 
noticed, some prominent parts, and show the little reli- 
ance we can place, either upon its statements of facts, 
or of legal principles. There is, throughout, a fearless 


rashness of assertion but too common in the theological 


writings of some of our sects. We do not make this re- 
mark in a spirit of censure ; for we are fully rn Foie 
the habit of degmatizing, like all other bad habits, soo: 
gets the mastery over our resolutions, and often renders 
insensible when we are acting under its despotic influ- 
ence. Weare not, however, “casuists enough to decide 
the precise shade of difference in a moral view, between 
assertions made at hazard, which those who make. them, 
do not know to be true, and those which are made 
against knowledge and conviction. Christian’ vos of 
will induce us to ‘place the almost innumerable errors 
fact in the pamiiphlet under review among the former. ~ 


Let us give a specimen of its unfounded assertions. ~ 


“Our fathers came here professedly to°org ea 
establish churches, wholly independent for existe an 
any civil associations ; and the right of electing t 
pastors was claimed and exercised by the er iid 
recognised and confirmed by law, first im 1641, 
twelve years from the commencement of the cc - 
Massachusetts, and again in 1668, after the comm 


ment of the parish controversy y, and again in 1695, at 


Church and People. ee 


the close of it; and the churches continued in the unin- 
_ . terrupted enjoyment of this right until mterrupted by the 
_ late decisions, a period of about one hundred and fifteen 
years.’—pp. 22, 23. *e 

Again, 

‘The churches existed for eighty years before the 
towns and parishes were allowed any voice in the elec- ~ 
tion of a pastor; and then the right came jn the form of 
a concession, on the part of the churches, and a comprom- 
ise, in consideration of the aid furnished by taxation, for 
the support of the Gospel. And now, did the church 
depend for her existence and protection in law, upon 
“her alliance with towns and parishes, when she had for 
almost an hundred years, enjoyed absolute independence, 
and was, in fact, the primary institution, for whose sake 
our Fathers came hither, and to whom these civil asso- 

» ciations were made subservient, without the least shadow 
of alliance, or power of interference, and which were 
afterwards received into partnership, upon the specific 
condition, that each should enjoy a concurrent vote in 
the election of a pastor ?—pp. 29, 30. 

Here is about as pleasant a foundation for a papacy, 
or at least a presbytery, as one might wish to see. The 
State was founded for the Church, and all its rights and 
privileges are ihe result of a charter on the part of the 
Church! Civil associations were made subservient to her, 
as her champions would express it, and she takes them into 

“partnership! . 

The truth is that there areas many errors in the state- 
ment quoted above, as there are sentences. “« 

Ist. So far from our fathers having refused any alli- 
ance between church and state, the whole history of Chris- 
tendom can hardly disclose so close a one. To the state, 
the clergy went for permission to hold a synod in order 
to force all men to think as they did. ‘To the civil rulers, 
they “plied to give to the proceedings of the synod the 
force of law ; they demanded the arm of flesh to enforce 
their creeds. 9 

2d. It is untrue that the concurrent right of election 


im the parish was a concession made by the churches. 
Q* 


18 Church and People. 


It was forced from them by public sentiment. They 
protested against it. They predicted, as these gentlemen 
now do, that the ruin and downfall of all religion would 
be the consequence of it. The parish owed this imper- 
fect act of justice to the legislature, not to the church. 
The true history of the case is this. In 1641, when 
the legislators were all church members, they made a 
law to perpetuate their own power, This is not an ano- 
malous case. Men are always ready to relieve others of 
the labor of making laws, and to assume it themselves. 
But discontents of the most violent nature arose against 
the usurpation. This is expressly and repeatedly admit- 
ted by the Groton Council themselves.* The dispute 
was asharp and angry one. The rights of the great 
body of Christians prevailed, and in 1692, the whole 
power of election was given to the people. The church 
made great efforts, and regained a portion of its power in ~ 
1693. The law then enacted gave a concurrent choice to 
the church and people. But the usurpers were dissatisfied 
with-an equal division of power, and by aiming at too 
much, they have finally lost all;—an issue not by any 
means unusual to those who aim at unlawful power. 
In 1635, the church had- influence enough to procure 
a law which virtually gave the exclusive right of election 
to them, by bringing to their aid an ecclesiastical coun- 
cil. But why are these gentlemen so disingenuous as to 
speak of the act of 1695, as an operative one? They 
must know that it was so odious, that it was never enforc- 
ed in a single case from that day to the present. The 
communicants acquired a power by that act which they 
never dared to exercise. Why, too, do they so often re- 
fer to the act of 1693, giving the concurrent power to the 
church, when they know that it was repealed by the act 
of 1695? These omissions, or misstatements, or mis- 
takes, have no tendency to gain our confidence. 


* See Result as quoted above, p. 16,17. Again;—‘ The efforts of the 
church to hold, and of towns and parishes to acquire, the sole power in 
the election of the minister, produced one of the Nein controversies that 
ever raged in the State, until it was’composed by the compromise ‘of 
1595! ~ Result, p. 40. "pits a 


_ 


Church and People. 19 


3d. One is not a little amused with the ease, with 
which these gentlemen extend the period of their usurpa- 
tion. They begin by stating the duration of their dynas- 
ty, or exclusive power, to have been eighty years. The 
fact is that the power was taken from them in sizty 
years, and fiercely disputed forty years before. Soon 
after, this young right, which never had a legitimate exis- 
tence, grows to the age of nearly one hundred years.— 
We mention this inaccuracy, but it is unimportant in any 
other view than as tending to show, that this Result is 
rather poetical than historical and legal. 

4th. They say, that the admission of the people to an 
equal, or concurrent vote in elections of ministers, was a 
concession made to the people in consideration of the aid 
furnished by taxation. There seems to be a small ana- 
chronism in this statement, even according to the facts 
adduced by our learned, but rather negligent friends. 
They state that the legal obligation on a town to support 
the pastor, originated in 1652, and the act giving to the 
parishes an equal voice, did not pass till 1693. Was this 
concession, then, the effect of the grant of taxation ? 
Were the gratitude and sense of justice of the churches 
‘so very feeble, and the recognition of their duties so very 
tardy ? ads ul 

Lastly, these venerable Counsellors are still more mis- 
taken in a more important assertion, which they repeat 
in many places with increased confidence ; viz. ‘ that 
there never was any interruption to the concurrent claims 
of the church from 1695 down to the /ate decisions.’ What 
a deplorable ignorance of our history! We are not in 
the least degree surprised at it, however, in gentlemen 
who are so ignorant of our laws and ‘usages, that, im- 
stead of speaking of our ‘ inhabitants,’ our ‘ citizens,’ our 
‘people,’ they almost invariably call the mass of voters 
the ‘ freemen,’—a phrase familiar in Connecticut, buat 
which must appear as strange to our ‘ inhabitants,’ ‘ citi- 
zens,’ and ‘ people,’ as if they had called them their ‘ high 
mightinesses. ~ - 
. _A tolerable acquaintance with our ecclesiastical histo- 
tory would have shown the Council.at Groton, that ffe- 


& 


” 


20 Church and People. 


quent disputes arose between the church and people as 
to the right of choosing the pastor, between the passage 
of the stillborn act of 1695 and the adoption of the Con- 
stitution. We shall ‘here cite a single case, which of it- 
self refutes the sweeping assertions of the Council, and ~ 
which explains the reason why all parties, Orthodox and 
liberal, united in taking away the exclusive and unfound- 
ed pretensions of the church, by an explicit provision of 
the Constitution. 

The case which we shall cite, was a very remarkable 
one. It is exceedingly instructive; because it shows to 
what hazard a religious people may be subjected by the 
fanaticism of a few members of the church. It was a 
case in which the church changed its creed, while the - 
parish retained their own; and we cannot refrain from 
asking, by the way, with all suitable reverence for this 
venerable Council, whether, if it had so happened that 
the church at Groton had been Unitarian, and the parish 
had remained Orthodox, we should have been instructed 
and enlightened by the learning of these gentlemen ? 

The pastoral office in the first church in Middlebo- 
rough, in the year 1744, being vacant by the death of 
the Rev. William * Thatcher, a majority of the church,— _ 
having been converted to the doctrines and fanaticism 
of Whitfield, designated by the title of ‘ new lights,’ and 
having thus abandoned the opinions which they and the 
congregation had before held,—were resolved not to 
agree to _the choice of any minister who’ did not hold 
these new opinions.—These ‘new light’ opinions, we 
would remark by the way, were not those of our fathers. 
The Orthodox clergy do not now hold them; they op- 
posed them at that time, and especially Whitfiela’s field 
preaching. We ask these venerable Counsellors what: 
are the rights of a parish, when a majority of the. 
church desert their former principles? Are t parish 
bound by their proceedings? Must their faith follow that | 
of a body of men, who are not their superiors in under- 
standing, and often not their equals ? 


* We are not sure that we should not say Peter instead of Williany 
Thatcher. 


Church and People. 21 


The church of Middleborough kept the parish na 
state of confusion from May till September. They vexed 
and harrassed them with contradictory votes and resolu- 
tions. On the Sth of September thé> majority of the 
church brought a clergyman of their own sentiments, 
without the assent of the parish, nay, when they knew 
the parish had provided another, and broke into the meet- 
inghouse. Great disorder and disgraceful scenes ensued. 
The parish had more physical force and were victorious. 
They were not, however, insolent or intolerant. They 
invited the ‘ new light’ preacher to fill the pulpit half the ’ 
da 

The most essential part of the case w as, that the parish 
and minority of the church called a council, who decid- 
ed that ‘ the church ought to give way—that the custom of 
several parishes, when destitute of a minister, had been 
to supply the pulpit by a committee chosen by the whole 
_ parish.” 'The church would not listen to the advice of 
this council, proceeded to call a minister of their own new 
opinions, and actually ordained him against the wishes 
of a majority of the people! The people however did 
not submit to this usurpation, but proceeded to choose 
and settle a minister of their own opinions. Thus, there 
must have been two councils, at least, im the middle of 
the last century, who declared the right of election to be 
in the people. 

If the members of the Groton Council had read through — 
the ‘ Ratio Discipline’ of Cotton Mather, which they 
quote with respect, they would have found that even that 
zealous stickler for church authority, admitted that in his 
time, the early part of the last century, great discon- 
tents prevailed at the concurrent power of the church. 
‘Though,’ says he, ‘ the law of the Province about choos- 
ing and settling a minister be a very wholesome law, and 
has much of the gospel it, yet there grows too much upon 
the inhabitants who are not yet come into the communion, 
a disposition to sepersede it and overrule it. Many peo- 
ple would not allow the church any privilege to go be- 
fore them in the choice ofa pastor. The clamor is, “ We 
must maintain him ;’’—and a most reasonable clamor it 


i i a 


92 Church and People. 


was, These discontents kept increasing, the church pra- 

dently yielding to a storm, which they could not resist, 

until the formation of a Constitution in 1780, furnished 

a fit opportunity <to settle the right, in conformity with 

that fundamental principle of civil liberty, that ‘ tazation 

and representation or the right of voting, are inseparable.’ 

This was the great principle of our revolution, and in- 

volves an inalienable right. 'The Groton Result would 

have been much more correct, if, instead of saying, that 

the claim of the church was uninterrupted from 1695 to ~_ 

1780, it had alieged that it never had been for one hour 

_ undisputed. Y 
We shall give another example of inaccuracy, which ~~ 

is so truly ludicrous, that we should not: be credited, if 

we did not exhibit it in their own words. Finding that 

the terms of the Constitution are clear and unambiguous, — 

they felt it to be necessary fo show, that churches wer 

corporate bodies, and therefore. within the provision of ~ 

the Constitution. This position they sustain in a manh- 

ner peculiar to themselves. But there was one imsupe- 

rable difficulty in their way, viz. the statute of 1754 in- ~ 

corporating the deacons, since revised, February 20, 

1786. They endeavour to evade the irresistible foree 

of this statute, by a course of reasoning which we think 

‘unique, and would recommend as a model to any writers, 

who may be hard pressed by arguments which they can- * 

Not answer. : F veer se 
‘The language of the law of 1754 implies, that the 

churches were corporations before, and was intended to 

confirm rights, which had come into doubt only by a change 

of circumstances, rendering technical accuracy more neces- 


’ 


sary. It is entitled an act for the “ better securing gra n 
and donations to pious uses,” and is as follows: “ W ax 
many grants and donations have heretofore been mi he 


go in succession ; but doubts haying arisen, in what eases 

such donations and grants may operate, so as to go in SUc= 

cession ; for ascertaining whereof, Be it enacted, the 
- 


Church and People. 23 


dedcons ofall the Protestant Churches shall be dhtned so far 
bodies corporate, as to take, in succession, all grants and 
donations.” ’"—p. 34. 


Upon this slender foundation are assumed the follow- 
ing extraordinary positions. 


Ist. ‘This act implies the preexistence in reality, of corpo- 
vate powers in the churches.’—Ibid. 


Answer. It implies precisely the reverse. Such an 
inference is precluded by it. If churches had been cor- 
porate bodies, the act would have been superfluous. 


2d. ‘It says that property has been given to them intend- 
ed to go in succession.’—Ibid. 


Answer. It says no such thing. Churches are not 
even mentioned in the preamble. 


8d. ‘ That some doubts had arisen concerning the corpo- 
rate powers of the churches, implying that once there were 
- no doubts on the subject, and to preclude these modern 
doubts in the shortest and most effectual manner, they make 
these powers certain, by an act of incorporation.’—Ibid. 


Answer: They do not say that there were any doubts 
about the corporate powers of the churches but in ‘ what 
cases grants and donations may operate’; and they then 
proceed to put an effectual end to all doubts as to the 
corporate powers of the churches; they decline to grant 
to the churches any. such ‘powers; but incorporate the 
‘deacons,’ with great caution, ‘so far, as to take in suc- 
cession all grants and donations.’ 

Throughout all the residue of the Result, the Gouied 
speak of the act of 1754 as having incorporated the 
churches! What can you say to such reasoners? Will 
the gentlemen contend that the right of electioa of pas- 
tors is given tothe deacons by the. Constitution, they 
being the only body politic in.the-church?. It has been 
supposed that this Result was submitted to Orthodox 
counsel, men learned im the law. This blunder about: - 
a act of 1754, Proves that this could not have been the 

act. 

It had been laid down bythe Supreme Judicial Court, 


24 Church and People. . 


that ‘the only circumstance which gives a church any 
tegal character, is its connexion with some“egally con- 
stituted society, and those who withdraw from the so- 
ciety cease to be members of that particular church, and 
the. remaining members continue to be the identical 
ehurch.’) This opinion every lawyer will at once admit _ 
to be correct. Our Council, however, contradict this 
opinion. ‘They say, ‘that though the churches of Mas- 
sachusetts have in fact existed within the limits ofa town 
or parish, it may not be true, that the legal exist- 
ence of the church depended on her ciwl location within 
some town or parish. ‘There is no such condition ex- 
pressed in the ancient laws, and the. historical evidence 
leads to a conclusion directly the reverse of this.’ 
They then proceed to present a confused idea of what 
they mean by this separate existence of the church. 
They appear to think the church an ambulatory body, ca- 
pable of locomotion, and separable from all other human 
society. But if they had perused with care the act of 
1800, which they quote, they would have seen that the pri- 
vileges and liberties therein secured to the several churches 
were thus confirmed only to such churches ‘as are con- 
nected and associated in public worship with the several 
towns, parishes, precincts, districts, bodies politic, being 
religious societies, established according to law, within 
this commonwealth.’ Our Jaws recognise and sustain 
no others. Our churches are, and always de facto and 
de jure have been thus associated. If a churely should 
remove out of a parish, or cease to worship with the pa- 
rish, their legal existence would cease. They could not — 
take the pastor with them. His contraet is with the 
parish. He could not recover his salary, either of the 
parish, or the church. The church thus separated could 
no longer vote on parish affairs. Church memb - 
moving out of the parish lose also their right of vo 
They who remain are the only true chureh.— 
principles will not be controverted by any sound lawyer. 

We now proceed to consider a part of this i 
which is of a more grave character, and which w 
mand from the Council some public explanation, Att 
close of their argument on the real intent and meaning 


> 


Church and People. 25 


of the third article of the Bill of Rights, they say, that the 
construction given to this article by the courts, 


‘is not a “ fundamental expression of the public will,” and 
that the freemen who adopted the constitution, had noi con- 
ception of its alleged hidden import. Indeed, say they, 
“there is a tradition, that the first legal expounder of the 

_ third article said, soon after having given his first exposi- 
tion of it, “ That when it was framed, he believed it would 
come to this, though he had not expected it would be in his 
day ; and that the people did not understand the article 
when it was adopted; and if they had, they would as soon 
have voted in a hierarchy.” ’—p. 53. 


.This is a most serious attack on the integrity, and 
understanding of Chief Justice Parsons. We believe it 
‘to be wholly a fabrication intended to impose on the 
credulity of these venerable strangers. We think more- 
over, that prudence and delicacy towards the memory of 
that great man, should have induced the Council to re- 
quire some better evidence in the case than ‘tradition.’ 
The story is as absurd as the calumny is atrocious. Chief 
Justice Parsons was one of the youngest members of the 
Convention for framing the. Constitution. The Com- 
mittee appointed to draw up the Constitution was nume- 
_Yrous. The Convention adjourned for some months to 
give full time to prepare it. The committee met daily 
m Boston and discussed every topic with the greatest — 
caution. The third article received more attention than 
any one. Upon that committee were, if we recollect 
rightly, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Caleb Strong, 


* James Bowdoin, and many other eminent statesmen. 


When their report was made to the Convention, every 
-part of the Constitution was fully examined. Nearly the 
whole people were then Orthodox. The Constitution 
i in the hands of the people for, some time before the 
iod of voting upon its acceptance. Is it possible that 
- Orthodox Caleb Strong,* and Samuel Adams, the 
‘ roel the Old South, + a man of rare sagacity, and all 


: .* The third article has always been reported, was drawn up by 
Miao le y ported, p by 
+ Samuel Adams, however, was not a member of the Old South till 
sowie time after 1780. ; 
. . 3 oe 


26 Church and People. 


the other astute men in the Convention, could not per- 
ceive the hidden meaning of the simplest sentence in the 
Constitution? Why did they not imsert the word 
‘churches’ instead of the words ‘religious societies,’ 
which last is strictly technical, and used as such in all 
the acts of incorporation before and since? Or why did 
they not insert a saving proviso ‘ reserving to the several 

-churches their usual and accustomed right of concur- 
rence? It cannot possibly be explained but upon the 
ground that they intended to settle the right of election, 
for ever, on those who support the teacher.—We shall 
have occasion to revert to this subject in the close. 

There is another criminating imputation to which we 
beg the attention, of our readers. In the year 1800, a 
bill was brought in and passed for the support of religious 
worship. That act adopted the same construction, which 
was. afterwards given by the Supreme Judicial Court, 
with regard to the exclusive right of the whole parish to _ 
elect their pastors. - "The language of the act is, ‘that _ 
the churches shall have, use, exercise and enjoy, all their 
accustomed privileges and liberties, respecting divine _ 
worship, church order, and discipline, not repugnant to 
the Constitution.’ But, as this law passed some time 
before the Court had occasion to pronounce its decision 
on the meaning of the clause in the Bill of Rights, the 
Council at Groton unadvisedly undertake to affirm, what 
st is absolutely impossible they could know, that, at that 
time, ‘ it had never been whispered or dreamed, that the 
Constitution had “ impaired” the rights of the churches 
or “ enlarged those of towns,” ’—according to the words ” 
of Chief Justice Parsons. They proceed : “ Th : 
standing of the law of 1800 could, therefore, : 
other than that the churches should co e to 
under the protection of the law, 1 the 
they had been accustomed to enjoy. 
and Italics are their own,] who subjoi 
“ not repugnant to the, Constituti i” 
what he meant by it, but even he 
have dared to tell the people.’ . 

Here again we have another uw 
brought upon the stage. Who ‘ 


Church and People. 27 


told. It was however some artful, intriguing man, who 
held the understandings of the legislature in utter con- 
tempt, and, the Council seem to think, deservedly ; for 
they did not know, as the Council pretend, what was the 
purport of a very plain clause in their own act. Who 
was this second culprit—for it must have been a second? 
Having had some connexion with the legislature of 1800, 
‘we are satisfied that it was not Chief Justice Parsons ; 
that he was nota member. We believe that the father 
of this bill was Enoch Titcomb, a deacon of a church. 
Samuel Phillips of Andover, one of the founders of the 
Theological School, and many other eminently Ortho- 
dox gentlemen, were in the Senate at the time of the 
passage of that act—Why could not the venerable Coun- 
cil have favored us with their own views, as to the mean- 
ing of this exception ? When we look into the Constitu- 
tion, with minds not disposed to find a Jesuitical trick in 
every thing, not prone to the habit of suspecting others 
of base and dishonorable intrigues, we must own, that we 
can see no part of the Constitution to which this excep- 
tion could possibly apply, but that relating to the right of 
_election. 'The Constitution does not ‘ impair’ or restrain 
the rights and privileges of the cliurches in any other 
respect than this. It must therefore be presumed that 
this exception referred to this particular feature of the 
Constitution ; and if so, there was a legislative construc- 
tion of it, several years before the decision of Chief Jus- 
tice Parsons, and in entire conformity with his opinions. 

We are much indebted to the reverend Council for 
bringing this statute of 1800 to our recollection. We 
considered the law so settled, the habits of Massachu- 
setts so naturally lead us to respect our courts of law, 
that we had suffered it to escape us. By what unhappy 
accident the Council at Groton drew it into notice, we 
are unable to say. All we can affirm is, that it is en- 
tirely fatal to all their pretensions, and takes away the 
whole effect of a heavy mass of eloquence. 

By the first section of the act of 1800, no privileges 
are given to churches except such as are connected and 
associated with existing bodies politic. By the second 

section, all the towns, mepttes, precincts, bodies politic, 


28 Church and People. 


or rédiaious societies, are held to be constantly provided . 
with a public teacher of piety, religion, and morality, un- 
der certain penalties to be recovered by indictment. 
Surely it will not even be pretended, that both the reli- 
gious societies and the parishes, and also the churches 
attached to them are liable to these fines ! If this should 
be the case, there would be a double set of fines; a fine | 
on the parish as a corporation, and an equal fine’ wae 
included corporation, as the Council consider it, the 
church. For, if the churches are incorporated societies, 
and within the provision of the Constitution, as ‘ reli- 
gious societies’ they~ are entitled to elect ; e converso, 
as religious societies they are liable to this penalty and 
subject to indictment. The rights and responsibilities 
must be reciprocal. Is there a lawyer in the State who 
would not laugh, till he could laugh no longer, at the 
indictment of a church—without property, as most 
churches are, without means of raising the fines—and at 
the same time another indictment against the parish for 
the same offence! It is so absurd that we are ashamed ~ 
that we have wasted so much time in prea the 
thought. 

But this is the least important objection. Th 
are liable to a perpetual and increasing fine, cuncealiet 
every six months, for not electing and providing a reli- 
gious teacher ; and yet, by the construction of this yene- , 
rable Council, they have not the power to do it. A ma- 
jority even of one, in a church,*éan deprive the parish of 
power to fill the vacancy. Nine men. for-that, was the 
majority in Groton, could keep that 
years, and yet the parish would be li 
of the fine every six months! Tt 
Legislature, in 1800, gave the sam 
Constitution, which the courts ha’ 

By the third section of the 
any contract made by any town 
public teacher, who may by them 
for their religious teacher, shall be 
ration.’ It will not be ieee 


And yet why not, if they ‘are b 
of the Constitution ? 


Church and People. 29 


By the fourth section, every town, parish, and body 
politic, or religious society, has a right to assess tazes for 
support of public worship, &c. Will any man pretend 
that churthes have this power? No. It will not be pre- 
tended. The Legislature, in 1800, therefore, did not con- 
sider the churches as bodies politic and corporate. 

But the conclusive reply to this pretension, will be 
found in the sixth section of this law, by which all 
laws providing for the settlement of ministers made prior 
to the Constitution, are expressly repealed. Why repeal 

‘the law of 1695 unless repugnant to the Constitution 2 
_ Let the construction adopted by the Supreme Judicial 
Court be right or wrong, this repeal has annihilated the 
pretensions of the churches. The property of the church 
' was preserved by the act of 1754, incorporating the dea- 
cons. -But the privilege of election depended solely on 
legislative discretion. ‘The power which gave it, not to 
a corporate body, but to individuals, had surely a right 
to resume it. ‘They have done it. There are no longer 
any exclusive privileges in church members. 


We shall now make a few remarks on the three grounds 
taken by the Council. 

The first point they assume is, that the church, in 
their narrow sense of the term, was instituted by Jesus 
Christ himself ; that he gave her the right to elect her 
own pastors ; that the church in the early ages was com- 
posed only of covenant members ; that our ancestors so 
considered its rights, and character ; in short, that there 
is a rightful permanent despotism in the church ; for such 
must be the effect, since not only the rules of admission 
are made by the church, but the church members have 
an arbitrary haa of rejecting an applicant on any pre- 
text or no pretext at all, and are not responsible for such 
rejection. Indeed they would in all the eminently Or- | 
_ thedox churches, reject an applicant for the meritorious 
offence of thinking for himself; for making his owr 
creed ; for refusing assent and subscription to a cove- 


nant containing sentiments which he cannot find in his 
bible.» Si ‘ 

This q is rendered of very little moment, since 
the repeate cial constructions which have been put 


30 Church dull People. 


on the third article of the Bill of Rights ; but we shail 
not pass it by without remarking, that there is something 
revolting to the feelings to see our Saviour’s name cited 
to support a gross abuse. With the bible in car hands, 
we know that it contains no directions of our Saviour 
whatever, about the form of his church, no rules or limi- 
tations for the admission of members, ‘and that he was 
wholly silent as to the choice of pastors, or the persons 
who should choose them. All these matters rest on tra- 
dition. : 
But we forbear an examination of this question, now 
immaterial, and refer our readers to a discussion of it in 
a review of the Dedham case in the Christian Disciple 
for July and August, 1820. ‘They will there find it main- 
‘tained, that in the early ages of Christianity, the church 
was the society of Christians worshipping in one place ; 
—that in this, the usual acceptation of the word, the 
church’ was divided into two classes only, clergy- and 
laity,—not into three, clergy, church members, and or- 
dinary worshippers ,—that church and parish were in the 
_ language of those times, convertible terms ;—that the 
choice of bishops, or presbyters—one and the same thing, 
that is, pastors, was made in a meeting of all the people ;— 
that even if it could be proved, that no persons were in 
‘the first centuries admitted to the church without entering 
into a special covenant, it would by no means follow, 
that such a course is necessary in the present age, which 
is of a very different character ; nay, that Hooker him- 
self, one of this Council’s favorite authorities, maintains 
that the children. of confederate parents are, ipso facto, 
‘ true member's according to the rul : 
profession of their fathers’ coven 
not make | Uny personal and sa 


of the We ackadent from the: Pe 
teenth century ; and that the high pret 
in regard to the election of pastors, are 


* Hooker’s Survey, Part I. pide “a 


Church and People. 34 


supported by an uninterrupted usage even for the last twe 
- centuries, that they have never been fully recognised for 
a single hour. But if it had been otherwise, we main- 
tain, that no length of time however great, can give a 
prescriptive right to usurpation, The reformation pro- 
ceeded wholly on this principle. ‘Equality in the chiis- 
tian church is one of its fundamental principles. It is to 
be sure, one which has been more often violated than any 
other. There has been an unceasing effort to lord it 
over God’s heritage, and this Result is but one of the latest 
of the million of efforts to this effect. But it comes in an 
inauspicious age for the spirit ofdomination. Popes and 
Jesuits may be restored in name, but not to their dange- 
rous power. The glory.has departed fromthem. The hu- 
man mind is free, and men will no longer, except in dis- 
tracted Spain, hail their despots as benefactors, and in- 
sist upon the restoration of their chains. 

There are two grounds of a legal nature taken in the 
Result, which are new. They are pretensions, which 
escaped the notice of all the re and public characters, 
who have been employed i in examining this question. It 
is rather curious that these points of law should never 


have occurred to the counsel in the three decided cases 


on the rights of churches, or to the learned judges, or to 
the Legislature, or to the late Convention, when they 
were discussing the third article, and yet that Drs 
Beecher and Porter, strangers to our laws, should have dis- 
covered them at a glance. The clause in the Bill of 
Rights which restores definitively to the parish, to the 
_ people, the exercise of inalienable rights of which they 
had been a leprived, was expressed in these terms ; 
owns, .parishes, precincts, and other 
religious societies, shall, at ‘all. times, 
right of electing their public teachers, 
ith them for their support.’ This 
unambiguous, positive, and per- 
of great importance, that we should 
he same hodies which have the right of 
e power of contracting with the pastor 
ave this power but the civil corporations. 
make a contract. No church ever did 
ither before, or after the Constitution 


-— > 


. ties of Boston? They were neither t 


32 Church and People. 


was adopted. We may say, ergo, the churches were ‘not 
the bodies to which the right of election was given. 

The pretensions of the churches of Massachusetts were 
gone forever, unless they could show, that they came with- 
in one of the descriptions of that short clause. Towns, 
parishes, or precincts, they could not pretend to be. No 
man in Massachusetts was so ignorant, or so bold asto 
affirm, that either of these descriptive names applied to oe 
churches. But’ at last, fortyseven years after the adop- 
tion of the Constitution, and about fifteen years after a 
judicial decision was made upon it,. the Council at Gro- 
ton discovered that churches are corporate bodies and re- 
ligious societies. In order to show this in avery logical — 
and truly legal manner, they begin by denying that any 
bodies of men existed in 1780, capable of fulfilling these — 
terms, or which answer to them, but churches. This, if 
correct, would have some weight. It would not of course 
make the churches bodies politic ; but as the words must 
be supposed to have had some meaning, there would have 
been a color for the pretence, that churches were intend- 
ed or designed by these words. If the assertion of the 
Council had been true, it would indeed be very perplex- 
ing to us, that Caleb Strong who drew up, and the ac- 
curate lawyers who examined, and discussed this article, 
should have omitted the word ‘ churches,’ and should 
have given to these poverty stricken institutions the power 
of contracting, when they knew that they had no funds, 
and no means of raising them ; but we might are, bow- 
ed with submission to an inevitable construc . 

But the assertion, ‘that besides 
precincts, there were no other religic 
politic but the churches,” is a mo 
traying an ignorance at which a 
a country academy would haye 
books are full of acts of incorpo: 
eties ;’—they were so at the t 
Constitution. What. were the fa 


precincts. They were ‘ bodies politic 
eties.’ These were their precise tec] 
they exactly correspond to the phras 

But these learned civilians may 


Church and People. 33 


churches too. They were bodies politic and religious so- 
cieties.’ We reply, that neither in law, nor in common 
language, were they the one or the other. How do they 
show that they were bodies politic? By sucha strain as 
this; ‘ Our fathers came hither to preserve the liberties 
of the church. They would not suffer her to depend on 
the world. Incorporations must be presumed. They 
» would not have permitted this poor handmaid, the ehurch, 
to be turned out, without her shepherd, among a merci- 
less, infidel, wicked race.’ This is the general tone, 
though not in the precise words of the pamphlet.—We 
ask these gentlemen, why they did not apply to two or~ 
three learned professional men, who are the just pride of 
Orthodoxy? These gentlemen would have said to them, 
—‘In Massachusetts we have no corporations by prescrip- 
' tion.. Our statute law has no chasms.. We can find no 
act incorporating a church. A corporate body can act 
only by its common seal We know of no church that 
‘hasone. We search the registry of deeds for two hundred 
years ; we cansee nodeed from any.church. We consult 
the records of the courts ; we find no suits for or against.a 
church. The act of 1754 shows that the churches were 
not corporations then, and that act did not make them such. 
Gentlemen, you injure the cause of Orthodoxy by meddling 
with topics which you do not comprehend. Preserve a 
discreet silence. Imitate the apostles in a suitable sub- 
mission to the ruling powers. Set an example of decen- 
cy and moderation, and you will gain more proselytes 
= real without knowledge.’ Such 
i “advice ofthese excellent 


we have in_this State, 
vay 0 of judging of the in- 
. by their words. If they are 
| or ambiguous expressions, if 
well known institutions, and 


34 Church and People. 


describe them in a simple and accurate manner, we nev- 
er resort to fanciful and imaginary suppositions and con- 
jectures. We hold, that if the people are fit to be 

ed with power, they must be supposed to be capable of 
comprehending the clearest language.* We know the 
Orthodox rule is different ; credo quia impossibile est. But 
upon the principle we have j ust stated, we infer, that the 
people comprehended the third 


‘article of the Bill of ry 
We infer, that they knew of the decisions of the f 


preme Court in Avery vs. Tyringham, Burr vs. 

wich, and the case of the First Church in Dedham. ee 
Orthodox lawyers certainly knew of them.. We infer, 
therefore, that as these decisions were all published before 
the discussions in the late Convention, as the third arti- 
cle then underwent very full revision, and no man at- 
tempted to restore the churches to their usurped powers; » 
—we infer that the construction of the courts on the 
third article met with universal approbation. We con- 
sider the silence of that Convention equivalent to a con- » 
firmation of the exclusive right of the people, who are 


*The great burden of eit on the peat of Dr Beecher, and 
others, is, that the clause in the Bill of Rights ety h exclusive right - 
of choice to the people; was smuggled through the Convention and not 
understood. e have taken some pains to ascertain the facis from au- 
thentic documents, The Committee who reported the draft of the me 
stitution, did not introduce. this clause. They simply ee ae 
third article, that parishes and towns should be required 
religious teacher. When that article was under 
Convention, the re paca igges of the | 

oviso, giving to the people, who were 
a reacts (See “the prin 
by order of the Convention. ) And 


Sami dams and sig 

they, Wihteresnt long ebates, a 
tance; and we feel ourselves 
you, that though the debates wei 
nations, it was finally agreetl 
ally takes place in disquisition: 
ed and thus commended, the 
meet with the support of 
In the convention of 1820- 
respecting the election of te: 
not at this moment even an 
vote to give up its parochial rig 
church members, 


Church and People. 35 


* 

the contractors and the tax payers, to elect those who are 
to teach them and their children morality and religion. 
We shall not insult the understandings of our readers 
by replying to, or retorting the sometimes canting, some- 
times inflammatory, and sometimes threatening language 
of this Result. Take a specimen ; ; it would not have 
disgraced a midnight meeting in the Convent des Jaco- 
bins. ‘'The reaction which is begun, is but begun ; and 
if it be terrible now, what will it become when an ex- 
tended sense of injury shall have roused and united the 
intire mass of Christians of all denominations, whose 
rights are placed in jeopardy ?—for of all modes of pro- 
moting sectarian views, that of legislation and aggression, 
. is the most hopeless, ina republican government.’ p. 62. 
To us, all this is a sealed book, a mystical jargon. We 
can comprehend nothing of the existing, or the threaten- 
ed ‘terrible’ reaction, nor of ‘ promoting sectarian views 
by legislative enactment.’ But one thing we do know, 
and which these gentlemen do as certainly not know— 
‘that the people of Massachusetts have a natural sagacity 
and shrewdness, which will at once enable them to ap- 
preciate this Result according to its real merit, which, 
in our opinion, is not such as will entitle its authors to 
canonization. We feel no apprehension, that our peo- 
ple will, by coaxing or threats, be induced to surrender 
rights which it cost them one hundred and fifty years af 

patient but i Spe efforts to secure. . 


ras sent to the press, we 
‘the first and Bi, ah 
ir side of this case, 
which passed between the 

lad that we were not in 
iting the review. There 

ould appear from these 


a: j it Would have been difficult 
to have’ “moderation, which such a 
subject 


ciples, not of the conduc of the yadiee | 


christian liberty. 


town of Groton, for it seems there rT 
- might have been | _rash, or its measures i I, 
the principles of the Result of Dr Beecher, 
been unsound and indefensible, and his ar 
our highest courts, turbulent and refractory. 
what we have seen, and we have a 
document, we are compelled to say, thi 
transaction, in civil or religious con 
meet with greater moderation ;.a more 
“corum, not to be disturbed by prove 
inciple: 


lightened determination to vindicate civ 
liberty, than in the proceedings of the 
and of its committees. _ “heir temper; 
duct is ‘highly honorable to: 

should be, and indeed must be submi itt 
The town of Groton owes it to its 

_ has been by this Council. S it owes = ‘othe 


We shall simply state, what our jimmita’s | 
‘enable us to do, that. jouncil was md ero z= 
parte one, but a mutual one was: never asked. 
direct violation of the Ca 
order,of church dise 
on the part of gentien 
tion for the’ usages o 
not notified of it, nor 

The point in disp 

/ pers; was) brought ‘s 
Sunieden, ‘and. changi 
oe. vorene, de com 


